Keep your eyes to the skies

russ_watters

And that particular person has a high degree of respectability/credibility when it comes to astronomical matters.

In any case, I share the opinion that the fact that those six objects were roughly 60 degrees apart is vaguely interesting but far less interesting than a real alignment such as the eclipse. And it doesn't look anything like a star of David.

I don't intend to debate the validity of astrology here (I think you already know my opinion anyway). I just wanted to point out that this "concordance" is not considered an astronomical "event" by astronomers.

Ivan Seeking

Here is the bad science [as usual] from bad astronomy.

Now from the Web page he references:
Did anyone say this was an astronomical event [in the scientific sense]? The BA author argues about issues that have nothing to do with the astrological interpretation. I can denounce physics by way of religious arguments just as easily; but it wouldn't mean much would it? The only reason the astronomical debunking appears to work is that the deeper interpretations of astrology are ignored and assumed to be bogus; therefore the argument is circular.

Kerrie

yes, the locations of the planets are fact, and professional astrologists (not the ones who write newspaper horoscopes) use what is called an ephemeris-an atlas to the where the planets are in the sky...thus, their interpretations are based on astronomical fact...

a link to an ephemeris:
2003 ephemeris

i would suggest you do some objective research on how true astrologists work, instead of lumping them as psuedo-science freaks...i merely wanted to share some information i thought was interesting, and instead i get bombarded by those who are advocating science as the only way-ironically like a religious fundamentalist...

Kerrie

i agree that astronomers don't consider this an event as much as the eclipse, but don't offer an apology of debunking my attempt to share this coincidence when i know you aren't sorry [t)]

Ambitwistor

Like I said, you are welcome to "interpret" the locations of the planets as a "Star of David", but if you actually look at their orbital configuration, few would agree that it does look like a Star of David. Did you look at their orbital configuration (or a diagram of it) yourself?

But they are psuedoscientists. It doesn't matter how much real data you use if your theory is wrong. I can use astronomical facts to make all kinds of interpretations, but that doesn't make the interpretations right.

I would suggest you do some objective research on how true astrologists work, starting with studies of the legitimacy and accuracy of their predictions. Remember to read the psychological literature, such as the phenomenon of subjective validation. When you've got some hard evidence, then you might have a basis for making suggestions like that.

Oh, don't even start with the "science is religion" nonsense. Nobody said anything of the sort.

Adrian Baker

This is a poor shot Kerrie. By all means argue your case and try to persuade us that Astrology is valid, but insults won't help your cause.

Most Physicists consider it to be utter rubbish and really couldn't be bothered to research it (like I'm not in the slightest bit interested in researching whether or not Aliens live on Mars), so please, put up a valid argument and some of us will at least listen. But comparing us to fundamentalist Christians... ! [g)]

Kerrie

is it though? i offered some data interesting to a few but get bombarded by those who are "defending" science?

you probably are fairly new here as i have talked a lot about astrology when we had the mystics forum, and was able to show some skeptics what astrology truely is...however, since ivan began this thread as something else, i won't get into it...if you like, begin a thread in ivan's forum and i will be happy to enlighten you on some facts you probably would have never learned from reading your daily horoscope in the paper (something an educated astrologist does not advocate)

ambi~

i am not advocating the interpretations are fact, i am advocating the placements of the planets are fact and astrololgists base their interpretations on those placements...

i would be happy to debate astrology here for the 5th time in the 2-1/2 years since i have been in this forum...but it needs to be a seperate topic[:D]

ambi, you are definitely new here...i have studied astrology on many levels for 12 years...before making these claims, i would suggest you know what you are talking about...

Ambitwistor

The BadAstronomy.com article in question was about the placements of the planets, and you called it "opinion".

That doesn't mean you have any objective evidence in its favor.

russ_watters

No, what I was sorry about was the arguement I knew this would cause, not about debunking astrology. But I felt it important to point out for the uninformed that the concordence is not an astronomical event but an astrological one. I (and clearly others) feel that distinction to be significant.

As far as the resulting arguement - its all been done before. Here is me letting it go...

Kerrie

did you read the link? the author gives his opinion completely on it:

i don't think you did...

and i am positive i have MUCH more objective evidence then you do in favor of astrology...care for me to interpret your natal chart[?] [;)]

russ_watters

Different issue, but I'd be interested in your interpreting my "natal chart" (I don't even know what that is, but I'm always curious). Perhaps a new thread?

Tom Mattson

Kerrie, I don't think you understood Ambitwistor's initial objection, which was:

But they are psuedoscientists. It doesn't matter how much real data you use if your theory is wrong. I can use astronomical facts to make all kinds of interpretations, but that doesn't make the interpretations right.

Like he said, it doesn't matter how much data you have in favor of astrology, and it doesn't matter that you have studied astrology for 12 years or that he is new here. Astrology is pseudoscience, simple as that. We already saw that when you did chroot's natal chart and he gave you feedback on the results. Astrology is the sort of "theory" that is right....except when it isn't. That is, when astrology gives the right result, it is taken as a confirmation. When it does not give the right result, the astrologist backs off and says, "Ah, but see, astrology only makes statements about tendencies." Succinctly put, the basic logical structure of its predictions is the schema "p OR ~p".

That is, it is a tautology, and therefore unfalsifiable, and therefore pseudoscience.

edit: fixed an italics bracket

Kerrie

Tom~

yes, we were hearing warren's assesment of himself, does that make it objective or subjective?

yes, because astrologists know that free will intervenes...astrology doesn't claim to have the answers or be scientific as a whole, only the placements of the planets are the facts that astrologists base their interpretations on, and those are subjective...

i brought up the point that ambi was new and i had studied astrology for 12 years because i tend to get this attitude from those who claim astrology is crap yet these are the ones who have read opinions of others instead of learning for themselves...

i am done here, if anyone would like to hear some real information on it, feel free to begin a topic and i will be happy to talk more about it...

Kerrie

i would be happy to in a thread or pm...i appreciate your sincere interest russ...

Ambitwistor

What a weaselly answer. If you're going to claim that he cannot objectively assess himself, then on what basis can we claim that astrologers can? Why is their judgement of him more credible than his own?

"Sorry Warren, I know you think that this natal chart interpretation is wrong, but believe me, it's really right --- you just don't know it." This is the kind of tautology Tom is speaking of. On what independent basis may we conclude that such an interpretation is accurate or not?

If you're going to claim instead that astrologers' interpretations are subjective (and what happened to objective evidence for astrology?), then on what basis can you claim that they represent reality?

I've read studies of astrology. None of them indicated that it worked. If you want to claim otherwise, it's up to you to prove it.

(But how are you going to prove it? You offered to do a natal chart interpretation, but then you claimed that if someone disagrees with your interpretation, they're wrong because their opinion is subjective! So what is that going to prove to anybody?)

Anyway, as you note, this is a better discussion for the skepticism forum.